Brian wrote:The point is, the minute you have evidence for it (eimpirically), it can't be God. That's why what you've said doesn't leave room for God.

Why is that? Did we create the definition of God which limited Him to being something we are not allowed to have empirical evidence of, or did God say that He didn't want there to ever be empirical evidence?

Empirical evidence is contrary to the very nature of God. Empirical evidence only exists in the natural world. If God exists He/She/It is supernatural. You can't measure the supernatural by natural means. It would be like giving a man a brain scan to find out how much he loved his wife.

"I guess the winter makes you laugh a little slowerMakes you talk a little lowerAbout the things you could not show her."

If I might interject, the nature of God is different to a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Christian or even an Animist. The dogma within some of those religions would agree with what you just posted while others wouldn't. Does this thread start from a position of assuming Christianity is true and the others are misguided? If so, does it assume, for example, that Roman Catholic dogma is true and other denominations are misguided? Can I go further and announce that my knowledge of God is true and all the rest of you scabrous heathens are entirely deluded?

To make statements that can be agreed by a range of people I think you need to define the range you want to encompass, and you need to define a dogma and vocabulary which everyone within that range can subscribe to. Then and only then you can pose your questions, like "will we instantly know God exists when we die".

So, what's the basis for the question? Christianity? Biblical inerrancy? Spiritualism? What's an acceptable authority to test the truth of the answer against?

You're correct about religious teachings influencing things -- but I was trying to ensure that I mostly focussed on people's own beliefs and perceptions, and didn't limit things to the written teachings of just one religion, or even just one sect within a religion.

So I think there isn't necessarily a way to "test the truth" - in the most logical answer, the only way to do that is to die and find out.There aren't sufficient truly empirical proofs to absolutely quantify it by Christianity's (multiple variances) teachings, or Buddhist, etc.Nor is there going to be common agreement- that also wasn't really the point, to come to some common statement that everyone posting has to agree with.

And, one part of my question posed was more on the lines of "what do we speculate might happen to someone who doesn't believe in any of it - yet is impacted by it anyhow at the moment they die".

Christians would immediately jump down the road of "he'll be judged and found wanting" = but that's not really the question - it's "Will everyone instantly know God exists when they die" or "are they capable of creating their own mental reality to such a degree that they continue to be able to disbelieve in God" (rightly or wrongly)

sirlamre wrote:what do we speculate might happen to someone who doesn't believe in any of it - yet is impacted by it anyhow at the moment they die.

That simplifies the discussion wonderfully, I can give a complete, unequivocal and accurate answer in a single sentence. After a cascade of recollections triggered by brain anoxia (if the dying person's concious), death is an off switch beyond which absolutely no aspect of the memory or the emotional makeup survives, whether they believe in any of it or not.

The established belief of various religious groups states otherwise, of course. But to describe their positions one needs to go beyond personal opinion.

sirlamre wrote:what do we speculate might happen to someone who doesn't believe in any of it - yet is impacted by it anyhow at the moment they die.

That simplifies the discussion wonderfully, I can give a complete, unequivocal and accurate answer in a single sentence. After a cascade of recollections triggered by brain anoxia (if the dying person's concious), death is an off switch beyond which absolutely no aspect of the memory or the emotional makeup survives, whether they believe in any of it or not.

The established belief of various religious groups states otherwise, of course. But to describe their positions one needs to go beyond personal opinion.

What you're talking about here is what we know empirically. Scientifically, it's all we can say, but that doesn't mean that it's a complete and accurate answer. It's just the most complete, accurate answer we know about.

To illustrate my point: What did Galileo think of the physics behind black holes? Simple: To him, they didn't exist. They were as real to him as miasma is to us -- just in the opposite direction, so to speak. He didn't consider black holes because he didn't know any better. We don't consider miasmas because we do know better. Who's to say that 1,000 years (or even 100 years) from now, some mechanism won't be found for consciousness to survive the death of the brain? Nobody can dispute that the body dies. The question is, does anything from the person survive the death of the body? The best answer that science has for that question right now is "no", but that doesn't mean that's the right answer.

Hell, we're not even 100% sure at this point when someone is dead, sometimes. It seems pretty clear to me that if we can watch every sign of life we know about go out of a person for a minute and a half, and the next minute, the person's conscious and talking, we pretty much don't know squat about the process.

"I guess the winter makes you laugh a little slowerMakes you talk a little lowerAbout the things you could not show her."